Samuel Kiprono Chepkonga

All parliamentary appearances

Entries 2991 to 3000 of 3315.

• 12 Nov 2013 in National Assembly: Yes, hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady. There is an amendment that is contained in the report which was tabled; unfortunately it appears not to have been captured under amendments. view
• 12 Nov 2013 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, I beg to move:- view
• 12 Nov 2013 in National Assembly: THAT, Clause 6 be amended by deleting subclause (4). This is the clause that states that a party to an agreement made under subsection (3) may apply to court to set aside the agreement, and the court The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor. view
• 12 Nov 2013 in National Assembly: may set aside the agreement, if it determines that the agreement was influenced by fraud, coercion or unjust influence. view
• 12 Nov 2013 in National Assembly: We are asking for this deletion because this is a repetition of automatic law that allows any party that is disgruntled under Clause 17 to apply to the High Court. We are saying that this is superfluous. We are requesting that this be deleted. view
• 12 Nov 2013 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, I beg to move a further amendment to Clause 6(1)(c) by deleting the word--- view
• 12 Nov 2013 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, it does not affect the Bill in any way. As far as we are concerned, from a drafting point of view, it does not make sense. Those rights are still protected under Clause 17, but we can leave it as it is. view
• 12 Nov 2013 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, I withdraw the amendment. view
• 12 Nov 2013 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, I beg to move:- THAT, Clause 6 be amended in sub-section (1)(c) by removing the words “or either”. This was in the minutes; unfortunately, it was left out. It is the amendment to Clause 6(1)(c), which reads as follows:- “---any other immovable and movable property owned by both spouses or either spouse and acquired during the subsistence of the marriage” I am proposing to remove the words “or either” in line with two and maintain the rest of 6(1). view
• 12 Nov 2013 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, the reason why we are proposing the amendment is to remove the words “or either”, so that matrimonial property does not include that which was owned by the person before marriage. If you remember, we moved an amendment that property that is inherited is not part of the matrimonial property that is acquired during the subsistence of the marriage. Therefore, we want to make it very clear that that property, which you have willed to your son or daughter, will not be subject to division during divorce proceedings. view